More Money for Quebec

[jdobbin]

Jeez, we just had the budget announced. Is this the next budget?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...30?hub=Politics

MONTREAL -- The Harper government is about to announce nearly a billion dollars in aid for Canada's aerospace industry, Radio-Canada reports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government will announce $900 million in assistance over five years for the industry, based mainly in Quebec, according to the television network.

[August1991]

That's $900 million over five years, or $180 million.

But Dobbin, if you want to play this game, how about this?

At $1200 per kid per year, which province has the most toddlers per capita? That is, Alberta seems to have alot of young families.

----

In the current political context, Harper has made a smart move. If I were a federalist, I'd pay six bucks (for the arithmetically challenged, that's 180 million/30 million) if it made Canada a viable two-party democracy.

[jdobbin]

That's $900 million over five years, or $180 million.

But Dobbin, if you want to play this game, how about this?

At $1200 per kid per year, which province has the most toddlers per capita? That is, Alberta seems to have alot of young families.

----

In the current political context, Harper has made a smart move. If I were a federalist, I'd pay six bucks (for the arithmetically challenged, that's 180 million/30 million) if it made Canada a viable two-party democracy.

My big concern was that we just had a budget. The spending announcements just go on and on.

What happens when we get an election call? More $1 billion dollar announcements?

[Michael Bluth]

My big concern was that we just had a budget. The spending announcements just go on and on.

What happens when we get an election call? More $1 billion dollar announcements?

Did this money come from funds already budgeted for?

In an election there will be billion dollar announcements by all parties. That's just kinda they way things work.

[August1991]

My big concern was that we just had a budget. The spending announcements just go on and on.

Government "budgets" are now PR exercises. (If that's news to you, then I don't know where you've been for the past several decades.) Government "budgets" became tax announcements and they've now lost that aspect. Governments nowadays present a "budget" on a single day purely to attract attention.

Governments do not spend money the way anyone else does, and modern politicians have learned this. The term government "budget" is almost an oxymoron. It bears no relation to your personal budget. It is not a corporate Annual Report.

It makes about as much sense for the federal government to prepare and present a budget as for you and all your neighbours to sit together in a church basement and prepare your tax forms as one single document.

[jdobbin]

Government "budgets" are now PR exercises. (If that's news to you, then I don't know where you've been for the past several decades.) Government "budgets" became tax announcements and they've now lost that aspect. Governments nowadays present a "budget" on a single day purely to attract attention.

Governments do not spend money the way anyone else does, and modern politicians have learned this. The term government "budget" is almost an oxymoron. It bears no relation to your personal budget. It is not a corporate Annual Report.

It makes about as much sense for the federal government to prepare and present a budget as for you and all your neighbours to sit together in a church basement and prepare your tax forms as one single document.

I understand what you are saying and I know the government has be flexible and respond to needs the country has. I just don't know why this wasn't included in a line item in the past budget, a budget that was not even a week ago.

I was queasy when the Liberals went on these made spending sprees. I'm no less queasy that the Tories are doing it now.

Moreover, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, it doesn't help if the spending announcements are so identifiably directed to one area of the country.

[geoffrey]

Moreover, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, it doesn't help if the spending announcements are so identifiably directed to one area of the country.

Can anyone say Mulroney? Harper might end the reign of the BQ, but he's inching closer everyday to bringing back Reform. When Quebec goes to two-party, the West will go to three.

[Michael Bluth]

Moreover, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, it doesn't help if the spending announcements are so identifiably directed to one area of the country.

Can anyone say Mulroney? Harper might end the reign of the BQ, but he's inching closer everyday to bringing back Reform. When Quebec goes to two-party, the West will go to three.

I'm actually surprised there wasn't a greater reaction to the "solution to the fiscal imbalance" being used for a tax cut.

It's almost farcical that Quebec runs their $7 a day daycare program and has the lowest tuition rates in the country but still whinges about needing more money.

I can't really see a move back to Reform anytime soon. The pain that was caused by the rise of the party wasn't really worth the changes that will result.

Hopefully the leader of the Conservatives after Harper is strong enough to keep the party together.

[August1991]

Getting back to the thread's title, I hope my arguments don't condone the idea of "subsidies" to "aeronautical industries".

I disagree with Harper's decision to give taxpayers' money out this way. I am terrified with the idea that modern democracy may make such decisions inevitable.

This is a modern (20th century) phenomenon and I fear that it will kill democracy - and while democratic government has its faults, all alternatives are worse.

This is a story about some economists who set out to study altruism and ended up discovering something very frightening about human nature.

...

Altruism means personally paying for the privilege of enriching a total stranger. That's not what these people are doing at all. Instead, they're paying for the privilege of taking money away from one total stranger -- namely the taxpayer who's funding the experiment (through the University of Arizona and the National Science Foundation) -- and giving it to another total stranger who happens to be in the next room. There's no sense in which that makes the world a richer place. And the subjects do all this without knowing anything at all about either stranger or having any reason to believe that one is more deserving than the other.

In the words of University of Rochester economist Mark Bils, "That's a pretty ugly instinct. It scares me to think I'm living in the same world with these people." It's not like they're taking from the rich to give to the poor; they're just randomly taking from some people so they can give to others. It's hard to imagine their motive, unless they just plain enjoy the capricious exercise of power, bestowing good fortune on some and bad fortune on others without any need for a rhyme or reason.

Reason

[geoffrey]

The pain that was caused by the rise of the party wasn't really worth the changes that will result.

I disagree. Spending was more restrained with Preston keeping an eye on Chretien then with Harper in the chair. Harper hasn't done anything for us. It's actually extremely disappointing. Preston at least gave us a voice against the continuous Quebec handouts.

I'd rather have a strong Alberta voice in opposition then one in the PMO rolling over to the Quebecois non-stop.

[August1991]

Moreover, as Andrew Coyne has pointed out, it doesn't help if the spending announcements are so identifiably directed to one area of the country.

Can anyone say Mulroney? Harper might end the reign of the BQ, but he's inching closer everyday to bringing back Reform. When Quebec goes to two-party, the West will go to three.

Geoffrey, it's easy to sit in Alberta (or wherever Coyne sits - Ottawa? Toronto?) and believe all the money goes to Quebec. They speak French. In Quebec, it's easy to believe that all the money goes to the English - after all, they are the majority and they control the country. (Do the rich and powerful ever really give up their status?)

And it's easy to sit on a farm and believe the cities get it or to sit in a city and believe the suburbs get it.

My point is that governments make it possible to move money arbitrarily around. Once we start that game, there's no end to it.

[August1991]

I'm actually surprised there wasn't a greater reaction to the "solution to the fiscal imbalance" being used for a tax cut.

I'm surprised that Charest didn't use the money to pay down Quebec's debt. That would have been the economic equivalent of a tax cut - without the political ambiguity.

When I saw Charest announce a tax cut rather than a reduction of the debt, I figured that he has bad economic advisors and that's almost as frightening.

[geoffrey]

Geoffrey, it's easy to sit in Alberta (or wherever Coyne sits - Ottawa? Toronto?) and believe all the money goes to Quebec. They speak French. In Quebec, it's easy to believe that all the money goes to the English - after all, they are the majority and they control the country. (Do the rich and powerful ever really give up their status?)

I'm confused. If you look at the payouts in the recent budget and spending announcements, much of it goes to Quebec. There is little doubt about that. What is a recent announcement of spending focused on Alberta (outside of the environmental handout that everyone got)?

And it's easy to sit on a farm and believe the cities get it or to sit in a city and believe the suburbs get it.

Then you look at the financial reality and realise that Quebec does get a great deal for their not-so-bad financial position.

My point is that governments make it possible to move money arbitrarily around. Once we start that game, there's no end to it.

It doesn't mean we should encourage it, or be ok with it. Especially when it's completely for partisan gain. Either way, politics is only about perception. I doubt if 0.001% of Canadians will go and look up the federal expenditures by province and find out how much everyone gets. The rest vote based on what they see.

Right now Albertans see Quebec and Quebec industry getting a ton of cash. They see Quebeckers getting a tax cut from a Harper handout that we don't get in Alberta. Why would an Albertan vote for that? What do we gain through Harper? What did we have under Manning?

I'll take Manning. Not only by perception, but because I've taken an indepth look at how poor a deal we've received since Harper has gone to Ottawa.

[August1991]

Spending was more restrained with Preston keeping an eye on Chretien then with Harper in the chair. Harper hasn't done anything for us. It's actually extremely disappointing. Preston at least gave us a voice against the continuous Quebec handouts.

I'd rather have a strong Alberta voice in opposition then one in the PMO rolling over to the Quebecois non-stop.

Geoffrey, I think that it's fair to say that the consensus on my French forum is that if Quebec had the resources of Alberta, Quebec would be an independent country. They are perplexed by Alberta's membership in Canada. Under similar circumstances, they would leave without question. (The pequistes downplay the importance of Alberta's oil money.)

For me, this is a disheartening conclusion. Life isn't about fair weather friends. So, when you hear that Quebecers tend to be leftist and collectivist, thinki otherwise.

[Michael Bluth]

I disagree. Spending was more restrained with Preston keeping an eye on Chretien then with Harper in the chair. Harper hasn't done anything for us. It's actually extremely disappointing. Preston at least gave us a voice against the continuous Quebec handouts.

I'd rather have a strong Alberta voice in opposition then one in the PMO rolling over to the Quebecois non-stop.

Is he really rolling over to the Quebecois non-stop?

Why the fixation on Quebec?

Life is all about trade-offs.

I am happy that our military is being funded and troop morale is being re-built.

I am happy that our relationship with the US is being repaired.

I am happy that the GST was cut.

I am happy that the money going to Quebec isn't lining party operatives pockets.

The trade-off? The Conservative party isn't braying everytime money goes to Quebec. Would the money still be going to Quebec if Paul Martin were still PM? Absolutely. Is there less money going to Quebec now than would be under the Liberals? I believe so.

None of the things that I listed above would have happened under the Liberals. So yes, it is a worthy trade-off.

The Quebec Liberals have taken some steps that I think you would agree with. Raising the daycare fee is one of them. Raising the ridiculously low tuition rates is another. Cutting taxes will help make their economy more competitive.

Steps are being taken in the right direction.

[Bakunin]

I'm actually surprised there wasn't a greater reaction to the "solution to the fiscal imbalance" being used for a tax cut.

I'm surprised that Charest didn't use the money to pay down Quebec's debt. That would have been the economic equivalent of a tax cut - without the political ambiguity.

When I saw Charest announce a tax cut rather than a reduction of the debt, I figured that he has bad economic advisors and that's almost as frightening.

, I think you are overrating Jean Charest. Mario Dumont said he his "un petit premier ministre partisan", i agree 100% with him. Once again we will get bashed by the ROC because of him.

[geoffrey]

For me, this is a disheartening conclusion. Life isn't about fair weather friends. So, when you hear that Quebecers tend to be leftist and collectivist, thinki otherwise.

I've never had that impression of Quebecers, then again my view is not typical of rest of Canada Canadians. I come from a French Canadian family with an extremely long history in Quebec. I visit often (I have family in Montreal, Drummondville and Quebec City). I speak respectable French. A pequiste riding (turned ADQ) is named after a long dead great great great relative of mine. I'm a long way from Quebec, but I'm not a long way from understanding what Quebec is seeking, alot of my history is in Quebec. Even my Irish side has roots in Montreal.

I agree with these Quebeckers. I'm perplexed why we stick around too. Alberta does enjoy a distinct culture as well, not as distinct as Quebec, but clearly very different from Toronto or even Vancouver. Being said, I think most of Canada would be better off in the long run independant from each other, so I don't know how valid my opinion is on the matter.

[geoffrey]

Life is all about trade-offs.

I am happy that our military is being funded and troop morale is being re-built.

I am happy that our relationship with the US is being repaired.

I am happy that the GST was cut.

I am happy that the money going to Quebec isn't lining party operatives pockets.

I was happy with the 16-15% income tax cut.

I was happy with the Liberal policy on income trusts.

I was happy with the track record of fiscal restraint of Mr. Martin.

I was happy with the Liberal corporate tax cuts.

But I'd never say they represented my values. Nor does Harper. When your pandering to a nation so big and diverse as Canada, no one will ever represent anyone fairly. It's time we realise that and move on from this unattainable dream. 140 years of history reflects my view quite clearly. It's always been about screw ___, we'll take ____, with various variations depending on the party.

Why do we accept this?

[Michael Bluth]

It's always been about screw ___, we'll take ____, with various variations depending on the party.

Why do we accept this?

Because in our big and diverse country there is no agreement on who is getting screwed in any particular situation.

We accept this because we are mature adults and realize that things can't always go exactly they way you want them to in life.

Some Quebeckers feel that they have been screwed over by Canada.

Some Albertans feel that they have been screwed over by Canada.

Some Ontarians feel that they have been screwed over by Canada.

And so on...

[Leafless]

Jeez, we just had the budget announced. Is this the next budget?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...30?hub=Politics

MONTREAL -- The Harper government is about to announce nearly a billion dollars in aid for Canada's aerospace industry, Radio-Canada reports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government will announce $900 million in assistance over five years for the industry, based mainly in Quebec, according to the television network.

I think Harper is plain crazy in his quest for Quebec votes.

Does he not see pumping more and more federal money into Quebec will only make Quebec more dependent on federal aid than ever.

Quebec should be made to realize that they are responsible for their own success and if they refuse to deal with the Anglo world to achieve this it is their problem and not Canada's.

Harper must be looking for a minority government. Does he not think all other provinces in Canada does not know what is going on? He is playing Canadians for a bunch of fools.

They have been allowed to isolate themselves from the real world to much long and have become a culture of entitlement at the expense of the rest of Canada.

[Michael Bluth]

I think Harper is plain crazy in his quest for Quebec votes.

Does he not see pumping more and more federal money into Quebec will only make Quebec more dependent on federal aid than ever.

Quebec should be made to realize that they are responsible for their own success and if they refuse to deal with the Anglo world to achieve this it is their problem and not Canada's.

Jean Chretien pandered to Quebec and won three straight majorities.

Quebeckers really don't see it as aid.

That last sentence is a sure-fire loser in Quebec.

The reality is that nobody can win a majority without a significant number of MPs from Quebec. Playing hardass with Quebec appeals to the hardcore Myron Thompson crew. When it comes down to it that's not the way to win a majority.

The Conservatives are disciplined and pragmatic at the moment. The Liberals are in disarray with a leader of questionably ability. It's been a long time since the CPC has enjoyed this kind of position on the Federal scene.

Picking an unnecessary fight with Quebec over equalization is undisciplined and overly dogmatic.

[Leafless]

Jean Chretien pandered to Quebec and won three straight majorities.

And you will probably never see that type of association again since the sponsorship scandal.

The Liberal party has always contained significant representation from Quebec.

This is why sometimes I refer the federal Liberals to a Quebec party since they mostly juggle issues around to suit the Quebec perspective.

That last sentence is a sure-fire loser in Quebec.

The reality is that nobody can win a majority without a significant number of MPs from Quebec. Playing hardass with Quebec appeals to the hardcore Myron Thompson crew. When it comes down to it that's not the way to win a majority.

The reality is, that is why we have a dysfunctional political system and always will until we have learned 'blackmail' is not part of part of a countries national objectives. And 'first past the post' system' is a mockery of our political system in a country that contains two main opposing cultures with completely different political ideologies.

The Conservatives are disciplined and pragmatic at the moment. The Liberals are in disarray with a leader of questionably ability. It's been a long time since the CPC has enjoyed this kind of position on the Federal scene.

I doubt if the Conservatives will ever cut it big time in Quebec, with the reason being Quebec is only happy when THEY are running the show, like in the Liberal party.

Picking an unnecessary fight with Quebec over equalization is undisciplined and overly dogmatic.

Oh. Why?

I don't even see the requirement for equalization payments as the GDP per capita is close right across Canada. Besides in Quebec's case revenues from exported hydro sales to the U.S. are not included in that provinces fiscal capacity.

Does equalization not remove the initiative for a province to do well and as a result from receiving nothing in Ontario's case means less $$$ for the province to work with, such as infrastructure for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments

[Michael Bluth]

The Liberal party has always contained significant representation from Quebec.

This is why sometimes I refer the federal Liberals to a Quebec party since they mostly juggle issues around to suit the Quebec perspective.

The Liberals haven't won a majority of the seats in Quebec since 1980.

The reality is, that is why we have a dysfunctional political system and always will until we have learned 'blackmail' is not part of part of a countries national objectives. And 'first past the post' system' is a mockery of our political system in a country that contains two main opposing cultures with completely different political ideologies.

Canada is much more than two main opposing cultures. The differences in political ideologies are not that simply defined. The ADQ's popularity shows that small town Quebec has many more things in common with small town English Canada than you are giving them credit for. Just like the values of Toronto are quite different from small town Ontario, the values of Montreal are quite different from small town Quebec.

I doubt if the Conservatives will ever cut it big time in Quebec, with the reason being Quebec is only happy when THEY are running the show, like in the Liberal party.

1984? 1988?

[Leafless]

The Liberals haven't won a majority of the seats in Quebec since 1980.

Jean Chretien a PM from Quebec served a double term, Nov. 4/93-Dec.12/2003.

Regardless the Liberals have always been influential as the official opposition.

Canada is much more than two main opposing cultures. The differences in political ideologies are not that simply defined. The ADQ's popularity shows that small town Quebec has many more things in common with small town English Canada than you are giving them credit for. Just like the values of Toronto are quite different from small town Ontario, the values of Montreal are quite different from small town Quebec.

Are you talking about the dissolution of federal powers to appease certain parts of Canada?

The ADQ will be doing the same as the PQ but a little differently in the way of seeking a higher degree of autonomy stopping short of independence. A divided Canada will never work and this aspect is worsening speaking of ethnic Toronto.

Why not just eliminate the federal government and get it over with, although personally I would never want this to happen.

1984? 1988?

Mulroney was a French Quebecer. Explains that easy enough.

This is something many Canadians don't want to see happen again, a PM from Quebec.

[Michael Bluth]

Jean Chretien a PM from Quebec served a double term, Nov. 4/93-Dec.12/2003.

Regardless the Liberals have always been influential as the official opposition.

They won those *three* majorities on their near hegemony in Ontario.

Are you talking about the dissolution of federal powers to appease certain parts of Canada?

Nope. Just disputed your "two main opposing cultures with completely different political ideologies assertion.

Mulroney was a French Quebecer. Explains that easy enough.

So the Conservatives can "cut it big time." Under certain circumstances. So much for never.

This is something many Canadians don't want to see happen again, a PM from Quebec.

I wouldn't agree with never. Just not after the next election.